The problems confronting modern aviation still involve limited visibility as a causal factor. For example, 30% of commercial aviation and 50% of all aviation fatalities are categorized as controlled-flight-into-terrain (CFIT) accidents. In general aviation (GA), almost three times more GA fatalities occurred in instrument meteorological (i.e., limited visibility) conditions. Limited visibility also increases the potential for runway incursions. From 2000 to 2003, 5.6 runway incursions occurred on average per million aircraft operations or 1,474 runway incursions out of 262 million aircraft operations. Probably the most significant problem causing airport delays are limited runway capacity and the increased air traffic separation required when weather conditions fall below visual flight rules operations. Many of these visibility problems have much to do with how cognitively complex flying has become owing, largely to the evolution of cockpit displays design, which require the pilot to extract and integrate information from multiple display sources to form a mental model. As a consequence, significant increases in aviation safety are unlikely to come from continued extrapolation from what exists today.
Previous flight management display methods transform and display flight management information obtained from flight data sensors and programmed plan information to display a graph or chart of a measured variable of the underlying flight mission. The existing flight management displays depict only ownship information with minimal symbology depictions (typically limited to airport symbology, navigational aids, etc.). Pilots currently have to mentally rehearse, memorize, and then translate the mental model to a plan view of two-dimensional navigation display information. Such two-dimensional navigation display information presents no correlating symbology to FAA approved and airline company charts that specifically define what the flight crew must do for particular standard operational procedures and non-normal procedures.
During flight operations, it is also critical that the pilot(s) listen and/or watch for updates, modifications, revisions, or other changes to air traffic control (ATC) clearance. The ATC clearance may be received via voice communications, or may be received via a datalink such as the Controller Pilot Datalink Communications (CPDLC) system. For example, the pilot may be on a specified approach into an airport (the aircraft's current intended route—direction, altitude, etc.—may be termed the “current flight path” or the “actual flight path”). While on approach, the pilot may receive an ATC clearance to change to a different approach, due to, e.g., wind shift requiring use of a different runway (the aircraft's suggested new route—direction, altitude, etc,—may be termed the “planned flight path” or the “predicted flight path”). Due to ATC error, the planned flight path could put the aircraft on a path that would result in the aircraft flying into terrain (i.e., CFIT). It may be difficult for the pilot to immediately recognize the potential danger, especially in limited visibility situations, and the pilot may accept the potentially disastrous ATC clearance (the pilot accepts the ATC clearance by issuing a WILCO response, indicating that the pilot will comply). In such a limited visibility situation, the pilot may not recognize the error until alerted by the Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS). By the time the TAWS provides an alert, it may be necessary for the pilot to execute an aggressive vertical “pull-up” maneuver to avoid the terrain, and in some situations it may be too late to avoid the terrain.